CAPA Compilation of Comments â DRAFT on ... - IHSS
ong>CAPAong> ong>Compilationong> ong>ofong> ong>Commentsong> – ong>DRAFTong> on Provider Enrollment Regulations: October 2, 2012 These look fine to me and match what we have already seen in the ACLs with the following notes: 1) The section referenced in 30-776.683(a)(1) is incorrect. 30-776.531 mentioned should be 30- 776.541 2) These regulations require the county (which is defined to include IHSS PA) to conduct investigations into court records that can be very complex and time-consuming. In some cases the court records may not be within the county that is required to conduct the investigation. a. Section 30-776.511(a)(1)(B) requires investigation ong>ofong> certain fraud charges to determine if they relate specifically to a health care or supportive services program. That information is typically not on the CORI, or subsequent arrest notices. b. Section 30-776.921(b)(1) requires the investigation through the court system ong>ofong> any subsequent arrest for a crime that would be disqualifying to determine the disposition ong>ofong> the case. IHSS Application Process: --Proposed 30-759.1, need to clarify that applications may be taken over the phone and signed by a social services staff person per MPP 30-009.224 --Proposed 30-759.2, although I understand that the health care certification is now required in order to get services, I am concerned that allowing eligibility determinations to occur 30 days after the signed and completed health care certification form is completed could result in serious delays (which are already a problem in many counties). It could be very easy for the health certification form to get delayed, or for people not to understand that the 30 day time period for an eligibility determination doesn’t begin to run until after the health cert form is submitted. At minimum, would need the option ong>ofong> an extension ong>ofong> emergency IHSS services. Provider Enrollment Requirements: --Proposed 30-776.3. Need to clarify the consequences for those deemed/determined ineligible due to failure to complete enrollment requirements or respond to the notice in 30-776.32. Someone could fail to respond because their potential employer/consumer’s plans changed, because they could not afford the background check, because notices got lots in the mail, etc. There should be a good cause exceptions. --Proposed 30-776.42 (retroactive payment). What is the authority for this provision It seems inconsistent with the fact that a consumer can get a retroactive payment ong>ofong> more than 90 days in some circumstances. For instance, if an individual files for a fair hearing, and receives a retroactive award from the ALJ, this could easily be more than 90 days, and the provider’s lack ong>ofong> certification should not prevent them from getting paid.